-->
@3RU7AL
If he had the power to stop it and did not, then yes.
Trolley problem
Posts
Total:
159
-->
@Theweakeredge
If you directly cause an action you have the most fault, if you help the action then you have some fault, if you let the action happen then you have less fault -
We agree.
And I'd say (IFF) you're thrust unexpectedly into a time-sensitive situation where you apparently have the ability to choose who lives and who dies without knowing who might be a saint and who might be a heinous criminal (THEN) you can be absolved for not taking action on severely limited information.
-->
@Theweakeredge
If he had the power to stop it and did not, then yes.
Ok, no more bathroom breaks for Superman.
-->
@Theweakeredge
You're saying that considering the fact that a CRIMINAL may be lying is "telling the future"?
How do you know if they are lying or not?
You only know IN THE FUTURE when they either KILL or NOT KILL someone every hour.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Your dishonest analogies are getting a little old.
AD HOMINEM ATTACK.
-->
@3RU7AL
And I'd say (IFF) you're thrust unexpectedly into a time-sensitive situation where you apparently have the ability to choose who lives and who dies without knowing who might be a saint and who might be a heinous criminal (THEN) you can be absolved for not taking action on severely limited information.
That is not what you claimed
You claimed that you could not be morally responsible if you commited no action. Until now you did not specify that you were referring to the trolley problem exclusively, in fact, it seems reasonable to interpret your words as specifically to general moral law.
Furthermore, I already covered this, next, nothing in this specific trolley problem means that it is time sensitive, just that the people cannot escape and that you have the choice. And you would be slightly responsible, to a much less degree then if the specific interactions were not true.
You are moving the goal posts now.
-->
@3RU7AL
Was he aware of them? No. Does Superman actually have to use the restroom... nope, he doesn't need to eat, as his body can work with photosynthesis alone.
-->
@3RU7AL
Wrong, there are actually machines which can depict, with general accuracy, whether someone is lying or not. It is not unreasonable for the thought that a criminal might lie, thus, it is entirely justifiable that you siimply not believe the criminal and thus not be responsible if that criminal is lying; however, there are clear exceptions to this, if you know this criminal is more likely to be killers than not, this does not apply
Futhermore that was not my only point regarding that situation, do you care to acknowledge those?
-->
@3RU7AL
AD HOMINEM ATTACK.
If that attack is not used to justify the belief or disbelief of a proposition then I could care less. It is not relevant.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Until now you did not specify that you were referring to the trolley problem exclusively,
ALL TROLLEY "PROBLEMS" SOLVED FOREVER.YOU CAN NEVER BE HELD MORALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR AN EVENT YOU DID NOT CAUSE. [POST#6]
-->
@Theweakeredge
And I'd say (IFF) you're thrust unexpectedly into a time-sensitive situation where you apparently have the ability to choose who lives and who dies without knowing who might be a saint and who might be a heinous criminal (THEN) you can be absolved for not taking action on severely limited information.That is not what you claimed
Do you agree or disagree with this conditional statement?
-->
@3RU7AL
YOU CAN NEVER BE HELD MORALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR AN EVENT YOU DID NOT CAUSE. [POST#6]
Did you fail to read the entire post? But honestly your selective reading is not the problem here, notice a word here: "NEVER", thus you were not addressing the trolley problem specifically, but the trolley problem was simply a example of a general claim which you made.
-->
@3RU7AL
Do you agree or disagree with this conditional statement?
In some cases I would agree in others I would disagree. As I already told you.
-->
@3RU7AL
Furthermore you already know how a big of a pet peeve it is of mine of not answering all of my criticisms. You have failed to addressed some of the first things I objected with, furthermore, you have dropped point after point. You have furthermore failed to provide clarification on your position. I asked if you agreed with the other statements, the ones that you ignored, but you have not responded.
Do you or do you not agree with the points which you have dropped?
-->
@Theweakeredge
Was he aware of them? No.
Superman has an above average intelligence. It is reasonable to believe that Superman is aware that somebody somewhere is in danger every second of every day.
Does Superman actually have to use the restroom... nope, he doesn't need to eat, as his body can work with photosynthesis alone.
Post-Crisis Superman seemed a bit more human and mentions more than once:
- He did need to breathe, just not very often and could hold his breath for a very long time, hours or even days if he needed to. (His body must not NEED oxygen at the same rate ours did, supplementing solar energy for whatever metabolic processes needed oxygen. He never notes whether it was painful to hold his breathe for such extended periods. He has worn a spacesuit and used compressed oxygen tablets when forced into space for extended periods.
- He notes he needed to sleep for the same reasons we do, to give his mind a chance to rest and process information through dreaming. He talked about going long periods without sleep noting reduced efficiency if he went longer than a month or two. (The clinical safe record for humans is about 11 days.)
- Post Crisis Superman was known to eat, mostly with his friends and family, but it was never made clear whether he NEEDED to eat. Since eating is both about repairing tissue and providing energy to the body, both things handled by his solar energy process, it is conceivable, Post Crisis Superman had no reason to have to eat other than enjoying the food and the company. [LINK]
Well, apparently, whether or not Superman NEEDS to eat, he certainly does eat and I think we can safely guess that the food is digested at some point.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Do you or do you not agree with the points which you have dropped?
Please be slightly more specific.
-->
@3RU7AL
I think that this is a red herring, furthermore I think that if Superman were to save everybody every second he could he would be mentally run down and therefore physically run down. If he were to use that mentality then he would start to inherenty blame himself as the cause of every death, which would further detract from his abilities. Therefore it is necessary for him to take breaks, to do things like this. everyday.
-->
@3RU7AL
I don't think I will. I was very specific in the paragraph leading to that question.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Wrong, there are actually machines which can depict, with general accuracy, whether someone is lying or not.
The Truth About Lie Detectors (aka Polygraph Tests)
Most psychologists agree that there is little evidence that polygraph tests can accurately detect lies.
Lie detector tests have become a popular cultural icon — from crime dramas to comedies to advertisements — the picture of a polygraph pen wildly gyrating on a moving chart is readily recognized symbol. But, as psychologist Leonard Saxe, PhD, (1991) has argued, the idea that we can detect a person's veracity by monitoring psychophysiological changes is more myth than reality. Even the term "lie detector," used to refer to polygraph testing, is a misnomer. So-called "lie detection" involves inferring deception through analysis of physiological responses to a structured, but unstandardized, series of questions. [THE AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION]
-->
@Theweakeredge
I think that if ANYperson were to save everybody (they could possibly save) every second they could they would be mentally run down and therefore physically run down. If they were to use that mentality then he would start to inherently blame themselves as the cause of every death (they could have prevented), which would further detract from their abilities. Therefore it is necessary for them to take breaks, to do things like this. everyday.
-->
@Theweakeredge
AD HOMINEM ATTACK.If that attack is not used to justify the belief or disbelief of a proposition then I could care less. It is not relevant.
Argument to the Man, Argumentum ad Hominem
When the speaker, instead of addressing the issues at hand, chooses to discuss the personal nature of his opponent [**]
If you don't think accusing me of insincerity is "relevant" then why do you mention it?
-->
@Theweakeredge
You can not assault others:You are being attacked and will die if you do not defend yourself, therefore you have the right to defend yourself with assault. Exceptions are not only preferable they are NECESSARY
This is not an exception.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Prove that claim.If you were to choose to not do something, then it is comparable to asserting that something is not.
CHOOSING =/= ACTING
-->
@oromagi
Don't forget the REAL trolley problem,
-->
@3RU7AL
Yes.. the name is slightly off base; however its inference is still accurate, and your citation does not change that - next - we are talking about a basis of reasonability which this does not address. You have not addressed the central point of my objection curious.
-->
@3RU7AL
you have copied my response and pasted it back, explain what it demonstrates.
-->
@3RU7AL
Your acknowledgement of an ad hominem is irrelevant, and I had addressed the argument already, therefore it actually isn't an ad hominem, furthermore its the "ad hominem" is relevant because it accurately describes your behavior, and thus should be considered in a lack of answering questions. Even with all the time writing out a debate I made you have failed to address all of my points.
-->
@3RU7AL
choosing to not do something is an action into itself.
-->
@3RU7AL
I don't care for red herrings, address the issue at hand.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Yes.. the name is slightly off base; however its inference is still accurate, and your citation does not change that - next - we are talking about a basis of reasonability which this does not address. You have not addressed the central point of my objection curious.
I have no idea which snippet this comment is in reference to.